Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Hearing yesterday in Salem



This is a recap of the alimony reform presentation I gave yesterday, and it's lengthy. If you are not interested in this issue, please go play words with friends or take a jog or something.

It was 3 against 1 yesterday in what I can only describe as a somewhat surreal experience. Tom and I traveled to Salem and met Jennifer 
Kennedy Lexa, Nicole Mattar and Andrew Guyler at the capitol. We had been invited to present our proposed changes to Oregon alimony law. On the other side was a family law judge and two divorce lawyers (divorce lawyers who make a very good living off the long, unpredictable and drawn-out nature of current divorce law).

I went first, but because the previous session had gone over by 35 minutes, I had to basically scrap most of my presentation and fly by the seat of my pants. Well, a really cute black dress, actually (thank you, Journey Gym! Size 6!)

While I would not describe myself as the world's most competent public speaker, I think my portion of the hearing went very well. I had them laughing, and I had them engaged. Many furrowed their brow when I spoke of the arbitrary and very difficult to modify nature of alimony awards. They especially liked it when I used my IRS letter example ("Hello, this is the IRS, we notice you make 1/10th you did last year, but we have become accustomed to taxing you at your former income so we will continue that process. If you cannot pay, you go to jail") that I posted on facebook a couple of months ago.

I wish I had more time, but I made my main points, which you will can see in the slide presentation should you choose to email me and request a copy. Then the other side had their turn. As I mentioned, there were three of them.

One speaker in particular was very notable. Personally, I assumed that despite the fact none of us were put under oath, we would all be honest and straightforward. One gentleman made a point of specifically misrepresenting the entire platform upon which OAR is based. He flipped the script - immediately after I said "X" he got up and said that I said "Y." How?

One of the very first points I made was that OAR believes that while judicial discretion is not the best way to solve every single contested divorce case (this is how things stand currently), judicial discretion should be preserved for those cases that warrant it: specifically those with unusual or especially compelling circumstances that demand a judge go outside the guidelines we are proposing.

I also made the point right off the bat that we understand the reasoning behind the concept of alimony, and we are not seeking to eliminate it. Rather, we are seeking to limit it by time (a cap of ten years) and amount (30% of income differential).

And yet, despite the fact this lawyer (seasoned all of three years yet somehow was part of this panel) had just sat through my presentation, had a copy of my materials, and saw them projected on two giant screens, he proceeded to testify that "every change they are proposing will completely eliminate all judicial discretion in every case and tie the judge's hands."

He said this at least 5 times in the five minutes he spoke. He also implied that our law would eliminate alimony altogether. This was an obvious and deliberate attempt to change our entire message. Happily for OAR, we watched the faces of the judiciary committee and afterward we all agreed that they were having none of it. These are some wicked smart peeps, yo!

Another speaker trotted out the sad and tired tale we have all heard a million times before: doctor marries wife, she gives up her career to put him through medical school and raise their four children. After 25 years of marriage, doctor throws over wife for a new, younger woman. It was interesting that at this point the speaker said "she was an attorney, actually, but not this attorney" which seemed to be referring to me. I may be imaging things, but it was just a really weird thing to say.

He said that case "haunts him to this day," despite the fact he got her a really spectacular lifetime alimony award. See the pattern here? We are in a NO-FAULT state, so it isn't supposed to matter if one person is a monumental asshole and the other is a saint. The division of property and allocation of alimony is a process that is supposed to be immune to finger-pointing and accusations of infidelity, excessive snoring, or an unhealthy addiction to Voodoo donuts and a resulting expanding girth.

It is almost always the men in the alimony argument who get painted as the evil and faithless scoundrel who leaves their poor wife in her middle age and after she "gave up" a career to raise children. You can just picture it: he strides by his former wife and children as they beg for money in the streets, arm and arm with his new young tart, both decked out in Prada, and she brushes imaginary lint off her ample and brand new bosom while he lights a Cuban cigar with a 100 dollar bill.

Maybe his wife wasn't all that great. Maybe she abused the children. Maybe she refused to be intimate with him. Maybe she was an unrelenting drug addict. Maybe she promised him when they got married that she wanted to have a career once the children were in school, but then refused to ever go back to work.  Maybe she had a profligate spending problem, on top of her refusal to work.  Worst of all, maybe she was boring. Maybe it was a combination of all these things and many others, along with the fact that the doctor was an insensitive jackass.


What annoys me is that the other side attempts to shift all blame in divorces on men who are enriched at their wives' expense and hot to chase new young tail. Sorry, but that just isn't the typical case. It's a cynical but foolish PR move that won't work.

Another tactic used by the other side is the continuous merging of the terms "alimony" and "child support" in a deliberate attempt to join two issues which are utterly separate and should not be viewed through the same lens. I lost count at how many times each of them spoke about child support and inferred that a standardization of alimony laws would negatively impact children.

One last thing: each of the anti-reform speakers wholeheartedly supports the current law in Oregon which says if your former spouse remarries that does NOT mean alimony ends, and if your former spouse remarries and you manage to cut off the gravy train, she can get it restarted if she gets divorced from Sucker #2 within ten years. Because after ten years, of course, that woman becomes another man's "responsibility."

Let that sink in. You pay and pay and one day, you hear your ex is getting remarried. After you finish dancing your happy dance (take your time, we know you must be thrilled!) you still have to sue her to end the alimony and go through a lengthy and very expensive court proceeding. And even if you win, and the alimony is reduced or eliminated, if she pulls the plug on marriage number two within 9 years and 355 days, you go right back on the hook.

If that doesn't sound fair to you and you want to get involved, and no I am not asking for donations, please email me at robindescamp@yahoo.com. There is much we can all do to try to get this legislation passed in the 2013 session. Please help. This could be you some day.